Jump to content

Talk:Norse colonization of North America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

[edit]


Wiki Education assignment: FYSEM-UA 900 Busting 11 myths about the archaeology of human evolution

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ArjunChikkappa (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jaelienrivera.

Sauer's 1975 draft, published 1980

[edit]

See[1] which says it adds no new material, publisher may also not be a RS; User talk:Carlstak You might be interested in these discussions. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, so here is the very final line in that report you posted about the final book by Carl Sauer; " ...Among its other virtues, the book establishes what a helpful handmaiden geography can be to history."
But someone above is saying "Sauer was quite respected... in geography and poetics of landscape. Not history."
Seems pretty clear that Sauer is still highly respected in the "history' field. I'd like to see the full paragraph by C.O.Sauer's 1980 Foreword returned to the article. Doug, if I do that will you delete it again? Rockawaypoint (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, although someone else might beat me to it. I see no consensus for it. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also revert as undue adding an entire paragraph from a 44 year old document. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that just your biased opinion? All the argument here that Carl Sauer is not reliable source about the Norse in North America is completely groundless. See the chapter by Sauer in "American History and the Social Sciences." Sauer is still highly respected today, dead or alive.
American history and the social sciences : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
"....content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Rockawaypoint (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK so this is nearly reaching the point of WP:NPA. You have been directed to WP:AGEMATTERS. Simply put, you're trying to use a source from a geographer in 1980 to dispute a paper written by archeologists in 2003. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What paper from 2003 do you have in mind? Rockawaypoint (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this one - the author has a second paper following up on the topic from 2010 with collaborators too. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that paper is not in any way the 'final word', no matter how much you would like it to be. The discovery at L'Anse aux Meadows is also not the "end" of the Vinland debate, if anything it is the start of a new chapter. L'Anse aux Meadows has never been accepted as a site in Vinland... its been presented as one by B. Wallace and a few others, but it just one theory, with a fair amount of speculation thrown in. Would a source from 2009 satisfy you as up-to-date?
Graeme Davis- "Vikings in America" 2009
"...The Vikings explored what they called Markland — Forest Land — which is usually identified with southern Labrador and the island of Newfoundland. The land is therefore named after the resource that the Vikings were seeking. Further south is the land they called Vinland, usually regarded as New England. L’Anse aux Meadows, the most remarkable American Viking archaeological site, is in Newfoundland; not in Vinland as often suggested, but rather in Markland." page 8
"...What we have at L’Anse aux Meadows is not Viking Vinland, but Viking Markland." page 76
"...The northern tip of Newfoundland does not resemble the saga description of a fertile Vinland, and its winters could not be described, as the sagas do, as being exceptionally mild. Nothing about L’Anse aux Meadows fits the description of Leifsbudir." page 77
"...the finds at L’Anse aux Meadows demonstrate Viking presence on the American continent, Newfoundland is not Vinland." page 171 Rockawaypoint (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was the final word. I said a full paragraph on a book from 1980 was undue. This is getting very tedious. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does he also say "... Markland, is plausibly identified with southern Labrador - though identification with the island of Newfoundland is equally possible." Doug Weller talk 16:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a fair statement... Markland has been ID'd as southern Labrador, and Newfoundland too. Markland has also been ID'd as Nova Scotia. Rockawaypoint (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On page 77 Graeme Davis says...
"...The site [L'Anse aux Meadows] raises very many questions. First of all this is not Leifsbudir, or anywhere precisely identified in the sagas. Leifsbudir consisted of booths and later no more than two houses, and at no time had more than two ships there. Leifsbudir had a palisade for defence, which L’Anse aux Meadows does not. The northern tip of Newfoundland does not resemble the saga description of a fertile Vinland, and its winters could not be described, as the sagas do, as being exceptionally mild. Nothing about L’Anse aux Meadows fits the description of Leifsbudir." Rockawaypoint (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Davis's book was poorly reviewed in the few academic sources that reviewed it. For example, Paula Martin, writing in the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, said of his book, Davis is a lecturer in English Linguistics who appears to know little about archaeology, and even less about early boats. He introduces the classic Viking longship as a technological advance, in moving from skeleton-first to the more flexible plank-first construction. He claims (p.16) that clinker planking ‘became the basis of all shipbuilding until iron hulls were developed’. And his description includes confusing explanations such as ‘The mast, the flooring and the rowing benches were likewise all fastened directly to the keel rather than to the hull, allowing the hull far greater flexibility’. A glance at the several publications in English from the Viking Ship Museum, Roskilde, would have sorted out such misunderstandings. As such it's another non-expert source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. Mar2012, Vol. 41 Issue 1, p219-220. 2p.) Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another quote from the review is so critical it makes me wonder if Davis's book should be considered a WP:FRINGE document: The penultimate chapter, ‘Memories of Vikings in America’, is less convincing, building supposition upon supposition, and in the case of the secretive nature of the Vatican archive, bordering on conspiracy theory. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, oh dear One example is the ‘Newport Tower’, on Rhode Island,. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Davis seems pretty clearly fringe and definitely not a reliable source we can use. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That may be only POV. Here is a customer review about Davis's book- Rockawaypoint (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A well-reasoned treatise written in an engaging style
Reviewed in the United States on October 7, 2022
This fresh look at the presence and influence of Vikings in America is a delightful, well researched read, tempered with adequate academic caution, but not afraid to put forth some plausible, if not currently accepted, theories and speculations about Viking presence in America. Professor Davis enlightens the interested reader with many historical tidbits that, in sum, make a very interesting and intriguing tale that certainly should stimulate further archeological, linguistic, and genetic research. Rockawaypoint (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to reviews we can treat a review by a scholar published in an academic press as reliable. We cannot treat a user generated review on Amazon as reliable. I will reiterate a question @Moxy asked you elsewhere - do you have a school or alma mater through which you could access journals and academic publications? Because we seem to have a bit of an issue with source discernment to address. Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the capstone is mention of the Newport Tower where radiocarbon dating has indicated the structure was built in the late-1600s. Assignment of it to Norse origins is literally a WP:FRINGE theory. This is an example of why, on this page about Norse colonization, we should not be cleaving to the Vinland saga narrative and should, instead, be following the archaeological evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I expected that reaction with the customer review, but it seems there is some real value there too... from John Q. Public and his ideas. Here is another review of Davis's book,- "Fantastic read, this connecting of the dots makes the saga of Vikings in America more relevant personally. Love the willingness to challenge stodgy historians on their nonsense too"
Vikings in America by Graeme Davis | Goodreads Rockawaypoint (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say above...."I will reiterate a question @Moxy asked you elsewhere - do you have a school or alma mater through which you could access journals and academic publications?"
Send along any and all references you or Moxy would like to send. There is a real chance I've will have already seen them. I asked Moxy a while back to send anything but did not hear from him. Yes, sources are important. Where would like to direct my attention? Rockawaypoint (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm asking is more about whether you have access to academic resources as the sources you have been suggesting tend to either be very old works, commercial non-fiction or random webpages. Are you able to go to a university library or jstor or somewhere like that to find papers? Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes I do have access to academic resources. Again, send me anything - short citations - here. Some of my sources might be "old" but what about Mats Larsson's work? And Dr. Stuart C Brown of Memorial Uni? And Kirsten Seaver? And Gisli Sigurdsson? Are you going to say they are not reliable sources?? Or they are random in some way?
I've been looking over the book by Graeme Davis. Noting there strikes me as "fringe." On page 167 he writes about the Newport Tower, -"It is the established view that the building dates from the early colonial period and anyone who dissents from this view is treated as some modern-day heretic." Rockawaypoint (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions

[edit]

No one should criticize another editor for providing their opinions here. Such criticisms need to stop. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can the 'table' of "Locations Proposed" from the sandbox be put on the main article for both Norse colonization of NA, and Vinland.

[edit]

That would be good way to list old and newer Vinland theories, and keep me busy adding names and head-shot photos, like the ones already there. The list can be expanded and it is a good way to fairly, and 'neutrally', get the full story of Vinland on Wikipedia. There is still no firm agreement yet over Vinland's location, or even Helluland or Markland's position. All is still up in air, no matter what we may all feel personally. Rockawaypoint (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the more reliable source cited at Talk:Norse colonization of North America/sandbox#Historiography (p. 223), I also found an older book published by the Smithsonian that used a similar kind of table. One site (didn't bookmark so no link) used a satellite map with dots for different Vinland claims, but that was confusing. Headshots should probably go into their biography articles; it's easy to overpack a table so that it becomes unreadable on mobile. Rjjiii (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is an easy way to add, for example Askell Love to the table... without the head-shot... just maybe enough text to direct/link to his main page on Wiki, and to the 1951 article "The Plants of Vineland the Good" from the Icelandic Canadian, Winter, 1951
Icelandic Canadian - Vol. 10, No. 2 - 1951 : Icelandic Canadian Club: : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Rockawaypoint (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Rjj for the link to John Swanton's Smithsonian [1947] paper. I have an original copy that is dried out and fragile so I don't like to handle it. Swanton is a great example for why I believe these older "sources" cannot be fully retired just yet.... these earlier researchers had very keen comments to make that are still worth mulling over today. Sorry to say that many people try to argue that Vinland was deep within the St. Lawrence River, but John Swanton [and Canadian Tryggvi Oleson] pointed out that the St. Lawrence does not really 'factor' well with the saga accounts. The sagas talk about open coastlines and sailing out of sight of land for "doger" at a time. John Swaton says.... pages 61-62
"In transferring the sites of Wonder-strands, Keelness, Stream Isle, and Streamfirth from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to points inside the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Steensby performed a distinct service to all students of the Wineland voyages, but when he goes on to place Wineland in the same region, only farther up toward the mouth of the river, like Hermannsson and Thordarson, I fail to follow him. Carried far enough it would bring the voyagers into a wild-grape country but, at the same time, to a certain knowledge of the great river, and of this the Sagas contain no trace." Rockawaypoint (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockawaypoint With the Visual Editor? Use this URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Norse_colonization_of_North_America/sandbox?veaction=edit Rjjiii (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like the table, particularly as it avoids the need for quotations, etc. I see Wallace isn't there. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to use the table, but what are headshots? We should discuss additions here. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also 100% ok with the table though, perhaps, Wallace should be added to it. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Head-shot, = photo from the shoulders and up. I thought the photos that appear when hovering over the hypertext name were part of the table, but I guess those photos are on the bio-pages of the 'scholars', past and present. I think I might start one or two all new bio-pages for researchers that should be in the table/rouge gallery but who are not well known on Wikipedia, if at all. Rockawaypoint (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If no one adds Birgitta Wallace I will do it in the next 24 hours. Carl Sauer too. I see there is a real need to list proposed specific sites for Leifsbudir, Straumsfjord and Hop. They fall all over the geographic picture. Pall Bergthorsson for example has Leifsbudir at either L'anse aux Meadows or Quebec City, but he locates Hop in Gowanus Bay, Brooklyn, New York. William Hovgaard reversed that 100%... he had Leifsbudir on the south shore of Cape Cod, but he placed Hop in "Sop's Arm, or some other inlet on the northeast coasst of Newfoundland coast, then becomes Hop." [page 241, Voyages of the Norsemen to America] G.M. Gathorne-Hardy also placed Hop in or near New York Harbor. For Leifsbudir, Carl O. Sauer wrote "...Buzzards Bay or somewhere to the west, perhaps as far west as New London." [page 137, "Northern Mists."] Shoe-horning info/details into the table may be needed to make it worth the trouble of building on it. Rockawaypoint (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having this discussion I two places is confusing
The source doesn’t list all those you mention. Is it really a good idea to add more?
Why do we have to add Leifsbudir, Straumsfjord and Hop? They aren’t that significant.
I really do not want to shoehorn anything into the table.
Please get agreement here before adding anything. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a sandbox, intended for heavy editing and experimenting. Those source lists from older sources are over twenty years old in one case, and seventy-seven years in another. They were never fully complete. The new table list is "Locations Proposed" Any legitimate [published] proposed location should be added to it. Leifsbudir, Straumsfjord and Hop are significant, they were the three settlement locations described in the two sagas. 'Shoehorning' with the sandbox will not be difficult at all. It just means expanding the table to have three columns, one each for "Leifsbudir", "Straumsfjord" and "Hop". The "Vinland" column can then be deleted. Nearly every published Vinland theory has a different location for the three settlement sites, but some sources believe Leifsbudir and Hop were the same location. And Birgitta Wallace for example believes Leifsbudir and Straumsfjord were one and same. The table when done will help to clear up a lot of confusion over all the proposed sites. Rockawaypoint (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel the need to tell one of the most experienced editors on Wikipedia what a sandbox is? And I agree that those three are out of scope. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leifsbudir, Straumsfjord and Hop" seem out of scope for this article.
  • I've moved the one big ref down to each row where it applies and added a {{fact}} tag to remind me that I need a source for the others.
  • Wallace should be added. The sources I started with were just too old to include her.
  • Going forward, since the table isn't bound by those researchers listed in that one source: it needs something to define its scope. I think the bare minimum is coverage in a secondary source, better if it's an overview of the subject. If we're doing articles for the researchers that meet the notability threshold then having a wiki article that mentions their Norse research could be an easy cutoff.
Rjjiii (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the table from 2000 by Gisli S. in the Smithsonian book. Beside Helluland, Markland, and Vinland, he has rows for Leifsbudir, Krossness, Kjalarnes, Bjarney, Furdustrandir, Straumsfjord, Straumey, Hop, One legged Land, & Distance Mountains. All these locations were listed by Gisli S. because they are important for a complete understanding of the Vinland story. He left a few boxes blank yet the researchers had proposed locations in most of those cases. His list is a great model to follow but it was very incomplete in 2000. I will add Birgitta Wallace; Johannes Kr. Tornoe and John R.L. Anderson to the list today. Tornoe will need a new Wiki article. He is listed on the Norwegian Polar Institute along with Helge Ingstad. Rockawaypoint (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockawaypoint On desktop, Wikipedia does a summary popup for articles. It'll include the first freely-licensed image file in the page (no fair use, no video, no audio, and it'll take a navbox image if that's first). Rjjiii (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Draft:Matthías Þórðarson

I did a stub for him. I think he clearly meets WP:N. Someone more familiar with Iceland, ideally someone who can read the language, should take a look at this to fact check it. I'll probably skip the others. They aren't as clear cut. Rjjiii (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see that started on Matthías Þórðarson. I'm trying to do the same for Johannes Kr. Tornoe, but tonight I've been totally distracted by re-reading William Babcock's 1913 [Smithsonian Misc. Collections] Vinland study; "Early Norse visits to North America." I see a major problem with Gisli S.'s 2000 "Table of Locations and Scholars." William Babcock placed Vinland in southern New England, not Nova Scotia as reported in Gisli S.'s 2000 Table. Corrections like these are not minor but are very important. Rockawaypoint (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed in draft. Rjjiii (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Babcock does NOT locate Vinland in Nova Scotia. The quote in note "e" of the draft reads, - "Wineland seems to have been understood as beginning with Cape Breton, below the Strait of Cabot, and extending a long way south ward." But Babcock is discussing what the early Icelanders may have thought of "New World" geography. It is NOT Babcock's view of Vinland's true location. On page 170 he wrote,"...Hop, their most southern point, was either on the eastern coast of New England below Maine or in the basin of Narragansett Bay, with a slight preponderance of probability for the latter." The proposed settlement sites should all be in this table, and need to be identified correctly. Rockawaypoint (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged these updates into the live article. I have left all the names on the table for the moment, but do think it would be a good idea to narrow it down by removing any researchers that don't have an article on en-wiki. That seems like a simple way to keep the scope from expanding to include everyone who has ever written about the Norse, Rjjiii (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging sandbox changes soon?

[edit]

@Donald Albury, Simonm223, Doug Weller, and Moxy: (pinging those discussing this article here or at the Wikiproject) I've been rewriting and reorganizing large parts of this article at:

Talk:Norse colonization of North America/sandbox

There's a lot left to improve, but I'm coming to a stopping point and plan to merge changes back in. I'm mostly looking for objections to anything that I've removed that others thinks is WP:DUE, any errors that I may have added, or any changes that folks think are not an improvement. I also appreciate any kind of feedback in general. Feel free to reply, to make edits to the sandbox, or to ignore this message and have a wonderful evening. Rjjiii (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That great.... I've always thought we should say more about the number of inhabitants in Greenland available to even colonize Canada/mainland North America. "Simply not enough Vikings". We should explain archaeologist are simply not looking for hundreds of sites cuz the Norse discovery of Vinland (and other lands) never sparked settlement from the greater Scandinavian community.Moxy🍁 03:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Taking a stab at it: 🗡 Rjjiii (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/From_West_to_East/tgznBwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=population+greenland+vinland&pg=PA53&printsec=frontcover From West to East
Current Approaches to Medieval Archaeology
2014] - I've copied a lot of the text but too much for here, but if anyone wants it email me.
this is very relevant:
"The most important reason was the small size of the Greenland settlement. In the 11th century Greenland had no more than 500 inhabitants and the colony never grew to more than 2000-3000 (Lynnerup 1998:116-118, 2003). Another distant settlement of the magnitude of L’Anse aux Meadows would not have been an option for such a small colony. As for actual colonizing, at this time Greenlanders did not need more land and could not support a distant outpost requiring significant manpower. The Viking settlements had reached their western limit." Doug Weller talk 18:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rjjiii, you say above, "I'm mostly looking for objections to anything that I've removed that others thinks is WP:DUE, any errors that I may have added, or any changes that folks think are not an improvement. I also appreciate any kind of feedback in general."
I see that in the table on the line for William Babcock, after I had switched ‘Nova Scotia’ to 'New England' for Vinland’s location you reverted back to 'Nova Scotia'.  I carefully checked Babcock’s paper again this morning and see nothing in there to support saying that Babcock chose to locate Vinland in Nova Scotia.  Please see these two quotes [and the one above, pg. 170], from his 1913 Smithsonian study; - “…he [Leif] must have reached southern New England at least, more likely New Jersey, or even the regions about the Chesapeake.“ [Babcock, pg. 93]
“The account of the shore westward beyond Leifs-booths in the Thorvald section of the Flateybook saga undoubtedly suggests the outer face of Long Island, N. Y., or some like low strand - possibly a reminiscence of Leif's earlier cursory visit to the coast.” [Babcock, pg. 94]
Let's improve the table and article by replacing 'Nova Scotia' with 'Southern New England' for Babcock's choice of Vinland's location. Rockawaypoint (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a problem with the Robert Kelogg citation in the table. Specifically I don't think Robert Kelogg is the author of the book. He wrote the introduction. Jane Smiley wrote the preface. Amazon actually lists the author credit as hers. Neither of them translated any of the sagas within. Simonm223 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223, You're right, Smiley is the editor, and Kellogg did the introduction. I think it's fixed now. Rjjiii (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Simonm223 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Dictionary of Canadian Biography a reliable source?

[edit]

Could anyone shed light on how the Dictionary of Canadian Biography is accepted as a 'reliable source' on Wikipedia? Will it be questioned, or taken as a reliable source?

Home – Dictionary of Canadian Biography Rockawaypoint (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be covered under WP:TERTIARY. Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its simply list bio publications.....each publication must stand on its own mertis. Moxy🍁 17:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Dictionary of Canadian Biography and their about page? [2] it looks pretty impressive. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very well done academic collection... it really depends on the time frame....as in if it is a recent publication or if it is 30 of 40 years out of date because the sourcing used for the article may even be older.... as in a century old. Moxy🍁 19:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Canadians, the Dictionary of Canadian Biography doesn't measure up. It hasn't equaled or surpassed "its counterparts elsewhere in the world". Not by a long shot. Its entry on Leif Ericsson, for example, is very dated. Funny that. The author, Tryggvi Julius Oleson, died in 1963. Carlstak (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlstak Thanks, that’s a good catch. Despite its credentials it look almost worse than the EB. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with what Doug said... it looks pretty impressive. Tryggvi Julius Oleson may be dead, and some of what he proposed may be controversial, but he was, and apparently still is, considered to be a reliable source. He said under, - THORFINNR <em>karlsefni</em> THORDARSON – Dictionary of Canadian Biography
"...They came to a landlocked bay, which they called Hop. Here, according to different versions of the saga, they spent either about two months or (more likely) a year. They found self-sown wheat growing on low-lying ground and vines or grapes on higher ground... The winter was mild with no snow and plenty of forage for the cattle. Hop is difficult to identify because of the discrepant accounts in the saga, but the description would fit Cape Cod. At Hop the expedition first met the indigenous people of the country whom they called Skrælingjar.."
There is the occasional loud protest to placing any part of Vinland in the United States, but the objections are "not very convincing" in the case of Massachusetts as said in 1954 by German Historian Paul Herrmann. There is still a well-established consensus among researchers that Vinland had been in southern New England. Even Helge Ingstad believed Hop had been in southern New England. See his book "Land Under the Pole Star", 1966 page 166. The New England consensus continued to grow after his discovery at L'anse aux Meadows. It still exists today, regardless of how anyone here may feel. I believe you have to consider removing or editing the line in the article claiming, "There are many poorly founded claims of Norse colonization in New England." Rockawaypoint (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

() You seem to miss the main point in ever conversation I see you in. Moxy🍁 19:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what the main point is from your perspective. Mine is rather simple... Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have NOT been accepted as matching up with the description of Vinland in the two Icelandic Sagas that describe it. Only a small hand full of writers/researchers believe Vinland was in Canada. The great majority of published theories place it farther south. Rockawaypoint (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This reply has nothing to do with the topic of this section.... please reread the section. Moxy🍁 20:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling there might have been an agenda here. The editor keeps citing really old sources to support the same old same old about New England. Carlstak (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At what point is this disruptive..... as in a waste of other editors time? Moxy🍁 20:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s been this way for some time. See Draft:Johannes Kristoffer Tornøe Doug Weller talk 21:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

() As seen below and by the draft it's clear they hear advocating for a fringe view all over - a single purpose account if you will. Wondering if we should pursue a topic ban.... see if they have any skills that are acceptable to the community in other areas? Moxy🍁 21:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And blithely disregarding the fact that continuing their little campaign with replies completely off-topic to the discussion that they started in this section is disruptive in itself. Carlstak (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Wiki policy of welcoming new editors and remaining on civil terms with each other? And what about Doug's note above..."No one should criticize another editor for providing their opinions here. Such criticisms need to stop." Doug Weller talk 16:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might think the New England/Vinland theory is 'fringe', but you are in the minority. Look at the "Locations Proposed" table. Nothing there that could be ID'd as 'fringe.' Rockawaypoint (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was indeed a bit too black and white. Sadly there can be cases where the way an editor puts forward their opinions means criticism of that behaviour is unavoidable, as it is IMHO here. And much as we try to welcome new editors, not all new editors are here to build the encyclopedia, and it is my opinion that you are WP:NOTHERE but are here only to push your pov. Doug Weller talk 09:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Author of the 2023 book is Johnathan F. Scott, I'm pretty sure he is a history Prof. in either New Hampshire or Vermont. He wrote this book about early Martha's Vineyard houses. I believe his Vinland book, even though it's self-published, is worth a mention, as one of the well written recent discussions of the Vinland controversy. - by a current Prof. of History. Rockawaypoint (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

()

I already closed this conversation. It's a self-published source. That means non-reliable. If this guy really is a history professor [dubiousdiscuss] then find some work that was published with an academic press. Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scott, Jonathan Fletcher. THE EARLY COLONIAL HOUSES OF MARTHA'S VINEYARD.(VOLUMES I AND II)(MASSACHUSETTS). University of Minnesota, 1985. Rockawaypoint (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This source appears to have nothing to do with Vinland or the Norse efforts to colonize North America so it is irrelevant. Please stop this. Simonm223 (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockawaypoint Which makes it more concerning that he couldn’t het it published Doug Weller talk 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Put it aside then. Makes no real difference here. There are plenty of other sources that make it clear that Vinland was most probably in New England. It is not a fringe idea at all. Johnathan Scott is a Prof. at the former Castleton University, in Vermont, now part of Vermont State Uni. Rockawaypoint (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it's time to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Let's see if you have the capability of editing Wikipedia in others areas. Moxy🍁 19:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An off-topic digression regarding a newspaper profile on the author of a self-published book.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here is a new source that supports New England as Vinland. Well researched, and well written book on the topic.
The Vineyard Gazette - Martha's Vineyard News | Walking in Viking Footsteps? Maybe Rockawaypoint (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockawaypoint Exactly what qualifies it as a reliable source per our policies and guidelines? Doug Weller talk 18:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockawaypoint At this point I'm basically begging you not to Gish Gallop your own threads any further. Can we please, just once, have a thread that doesn't become "well what about this source then" entirely unrelated to the original topic of the thread. It's both a transparent POV pushing tactic and also quite frustrating for other editors. And, supporting what Moxy and Doug Weller have been telling you, most of the other editors in this space have been being very patient with such antics because you are a new editor. But, seriously, slow down and have a fulsome conversation on a single topic instead of just throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless the Vinyard Gazette article does not actually support that vikings settled on Nomans Land (Massachusetts). It supports that a local author disagrees with the academic consensus that the rune stone found on the island is a hoax on the basis that (citing the article on Wikipedia that uses the source) translations of the runes on the stone contained unusual grammar as well as Roman numerals, which has led to skepticism about its credibility. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the book by Johnathan Scott "Vinland the Good", not the newspaper article about it, that looks as though it could be a legitimate 'resource." Published in 2023, so please stop saying the sources I list are out of date. Rockawaypoint (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockawaypoint Once again, what about this book meets our criteria for reliable sources? Doug Weller talk 19:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]